Really, is anyone surprised by all of this? It was just a matter of time. Most every pilot, mechanic, dispatcher, flight attendant, gate agent, crew scheduler, airline analyst and frequent business traveler knew that this day would arrive. So why did it? How have we gotten to this sad state of affairs? Who's managing us? Who leads us?
First Southwest grounded their 737's due to fatigue cracks. That surprised me because they strike me as a well managed business. One of the few. Only days later, United stranded passengers with 747 and 777 brake issues. Then less surprising to me, Delta and American grounded MD-80's, canceling more than a thousand flights due to wire bundles that transit wheel wells near fuel tanks. After the dust settled and the PR people rushed into position, American, just a few days later grounds more than a thousand flights yet again. And today, they're canceling another 500 or so. And it's only 9:00 a.m.! (By Sunday 13 April, American canceled more than 3,300 flights. Using a conservative 75% load factor, this equates to 346,000 effected passengers.) If I push off the gate 3 minutes late, I'll receive an automated ACARS message asking why.
The evening news leads each night with video depicting endless lines of frustrated, dis-sheveled, angry passengers, lined up before airline ticket counters. Just last week I was writing about the rash of airline bankruptcy's and terminations. Incidentally, you can add Denver based Frontier to that list now. Remarkably, our industry resembles a "third-world" or "banana republic" operation. Time, Newsweek, BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Talk Radio are having a field day, to say nothing about Jay Leno. The headlines I suspect would have been worse, had we not been over-shadowed by greater incompetence in Washington and at Bear-Sterns. With 34 years of airline experience, I've never seen anything like this. I've referred to our industry in the past as a rudderless ship, lurching from crises to crises. Does this bear me out or what? I take no glee in being proved correct; this is devastating to those of us employed in the field and to those who rely upon our services.
In the midst of this chaos, where are the Boards of Directors of these corporations, as they've lost as much as 80% share value during the past 52 weeks. Thankfully, I didn't depend upon these "captains of industry" and sold my equity share when we exited bankruptcy. More of the same from these fellows and we'll revisit chapter 11 again soon!
Last February when jetBlue experienced its meltdown at JFK, their BOD terminated David Neeleman within weeks. He's off to Brazil now, but I admire him because he's an entrepreneur and an innovator. Considering this latest debacle, here's a simple test question for perspective board members. At a 121 certificated air carrier, who's ultimately responsible to insure that maintenance is scheduled, performed, and properly recorded? (A) The Director of Maintenance (B) The CEO (C) The janitor or (D) A mechanic? Oh the mechanics... you remember them don't you? They were the guys on the ramp that fixed components in a timely fashion as problems surfaced, thus lessening delays. Or in a nearby hangar on long term projects, such as engine rebuilds or major airframe checks. According to most management teams, they were too expensive though. I wonder if that thought prevails? Anyway, a few are still around, but for the most part they've been outsourced. Mexico, Argentina, Korea, China and India are just a few of the popular places where our airplanes are attended to. To learn more about maintenance outsourcing, click on the title to this post. I think you'll find Geri Smith's and Justin Bachman's BusinessWeek article interesting and objective. According to this article though, The US House of Representatives is getting involved. From my viewpoint this is akin to the inmates running the asylum!
Do you need anymore information? Here, click this from ABC news. I'm sorry to burden you with so much reading, but I'm attempting to demonstrate that my opinions seemed to be shared by both news and business organizations alike. I am after all a pilot, and have been accused of bias towards labor. OK, this is the last one. Even The Economist is weighing in on the US Airline industry. They allude to labor as a contributor to the problem, but clearly lay blame at the feet of management; those whose job it is to "manage," Oh, and the answer to my test question... I think it's (C) the janitor!
Thanks for reading and fly safely.
Rand
16 comments:
Hey Rand...just so you know...your links are not working!
ND---SEATAC ramp tower
Thanks Scully,
The title link works, but apparently the links at the end of my article aren't coming up. I'll investigate.
Thanks,
Rand
Love reading your blogs and i agree with you 100%. Im in the process of deciding whether or not to enter the industy.
Daniel J
Not a problem just remove the extra http/ in the link addresses.
Looks like Rand is going to be kept busy for some time. Northwest and Delta are merging and will form the largest air hub here in Boston:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/04/14/delta_northwest_merger_to_create_logans_largest_carrier/
May god bless you and the seniority controversy
I feel for your pain, but as advice to stranded passengers: have a look at the price of your ticket. This is how much flying you get for that money.
More people are flying for cheaper than ever before (in real dollars). Something, or someone is going to suffer somewhere.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the info on the links, my computer skills don't run deep, but the links work now.
Thanks,
Rand
And yes, DAL/NWA have merged. I don't know what that means though yet.
David Neelemen? Morris Air? I think he helped upstart WestJet and ran SWA for a while (before JetBlue no?). I know he scored big selling Morris Air to SWA in the early 90's.
Rand---
Well, we live in interesting times...
See you down the line (I hope)
Tim_757
" Then less surprising to me, Delta and American grounded MD-80's, canceling more than a thousand flights due to wire bundles that transit wheel wells near fuel tanks."
Huh? What is that supposed to mean? I like your blog Rand but if you're trying to imply that DL and AA cut corners, you're way off base.
It's my understanding that the initial inspections were the result of ambiguity in the AD itself. A friend from school is an MD-80 F/O at AA, and tells me that the original AD specified a fix that called for "approximately 4 inches" (from the AD) a certain length of wire covering. "Approximately" was the problem that led to the AA fleet being grounded. AA maintenance used a legnth of covering that they though was "approximately 4 inches" (3.8" in some cases, 3.9" in others, and 3.7" in even others). The FAA inspector conducted an audit of the AD, and said that the length of covering used wasn't consistent with the direction in the AD, and therefore he ordered the the fleet grounded. He probably wouldn't have done so if not for the pressure FAA is under following the WN revelations. This wiring is a backup to a backup hydraulic system that, according to my friend, resides in a non pressurized area of the wheel well of the main landing gear on the MD-80 (I presume the same on the MD-88 for Delta as well- maybe a DL person on here can confirm?).
It's my understanding that, as a result of FAA's actions, Delta decided to inspect all their MD-88's preemptively to make sure they were in compliance lest the FAA come in and do the same thing to them, and you'll note that none of their airplanes were found not to be in compliance. It's my understanding that both airlines had completed the AD well before these inspections, so it wasn't a matter of the AD not having been completed. The question was whether the AD had been completed to FAA's specs. Both airlines, as I understand it, have voiced strong concerns with FAA over their handling in this as, again, the AD was ambiguous. "Approximately" a certain length means different things to different people.
Moving forward there's probably a few lessons FAA could learn from this:
1) It would do the FAA well to be more specific in their AD's, instead of being ambiguous and then grounding fleets even though an airline tried to comply.
2) The FAA should come up with standards as to how to handle a situation where an airline tries to comply with an AD but doesn't, versus willfully doesn't comply. If this story is true, and the AD was ambiguous, and the fix wasn't something that was dangerous to the flight of the airplane, and the airline made the fix anyways per the AD although the FAA later deemed that the fix wasn't sufficient, then why punish the airline by grounding the entire fleet? Seems overly punitive.
3) The FAA should get more inspectors. It would seem this problem could have been solved a while ago had there been more inspectors out there inspecting the airplanes as they came off the line, instead of waiting until years after the fact.
Anonymous,
Without knowing your affiliation, background or experience, it's difficult to address your concerns, but from the sound of your note, you speak the language. I didn't write this specifically as a swipe at AA or DL. But as you know, I do try to call a spade a spade; frequently holding my own employers feet to the fire. Here's my intent though with this particular blog posting. It has been my experience and the experiences voiced to me by friends/pilots at other airlines, that since these (meaning all) airlines have outsourced (at least a considerable portion of) their maintenance, both timeliness and quality have suffered. I think there is general agreement with that statement. The result equals more and longer delays or outright cancelation. Would this debacle, that crippled AA recently, have occurred without outsourced maintenance? Regardless of FAA ambiguity? We'll never know. But my experience, both pre and post outsourcing, indicates that it's a strong contributing factor. I hope that this clarifies my position and that possibly other pilots will comment here with regard to their experiences too.
Rand
Rand: I'm the guy who posted the long post previously. The issue here isn'tvairline outsourcing maintenance, the issue with specific regard to AA and DL is that they completed the AD in a timely fashion, to the letter of the law as the AD was written, and had it signed off on by the FAA, only to have the FAA come back in (in the case of AA) after the fact and decide that , actually, AA didn't comply with the AD. DL, seeing what happened at AA voluntarily grounded their fleet for a reinspection, only to find that not one of their airplanes were out of compliance.
The issue here isn't outsourcing maintenance, the issue is the fact that the FAA apparently can't promulgate an AD, nor could they agree on what constituted complying with the AD.
You asked the question: Would this debacle, that crippled AA recently, have occurred without outsourced maintenance? Regardless of FAA ambiguity? The answer, unequivocally is no, it would not have. If they FAA approves the fixes, only to come in after the fact to say they change their mind, you could have Bill Boeing himself doing the maintenance.
For you to say that AA and DL are cutting corners on maintenance, or that any outsourced maintenance it may do was causal to this just simply is inaccurate. You sound like the talking heads on CNN...taking one issue and clouding it with another. You should know better.
Rand,
Best of luck to you as you navigate yet another turbulent chapter in the life of an airline employee.
Anonymous,
I see your point, but apparently you don't see mine. You've accused me twice now of "saying" that "AA has cut corners." I've never said that. I used AA as one example, to illustrate an industry that's adrift without leadership. How many CEO's have passed through AA recently? Do any measure up to the standards or leadership of C.R. Smith? Would this have happened during Bob Crandall's watch? Not likely. The CEO's office at all airlines seem to have a revolving door.
I mentioned SWA, DAL, UAL, jetBlue and their Boards of Directors as well to make a case. Nor did I accuse them of cutting corners.
You mentioned the FAA. I have 34 years of checkrides, line checks and orals behind me. Many, if not most, conducted by people who have no day to day jet experience, have never flown a schedule or a CAT III approach. I think that I have reasonable experience here too with this government organization.
For the second time and last time, my point behind the post was outsourced maintenance and how I think that it has contributed towards the deterioration of the industry. I don't think that with the hands on, day to day maintenance departments we as an industry enjoyed a few years ago, that this would have occurred. Nor do I think it would have occurred under strong corporate leadership. Apparently you disagree. Possibly you are outsourced maintenance and read this as a personal attack.
Twice you stressed that the problem isn't outsourced maintenance, but the FAA. I disagree. The problem is a lack of leadership in an industry that has little direction and uses bankruptcy as a management tool. Once again, would Bob Crandall have put up with this? No, he'd have been in Washington banging on doors. Don Nyrop, Pat Patterson and Eddie Rickenbacker would have been there with him. Who among today's (MBA) CEO's, who look to Washington for bailouts and favors, would dare to lead like this?
These are my opinions anonymous, based on years in airline cockpits and not anonymously. A CNN talking head? I see that you've lumped me in with another group who knows little about the industry.
Rand: You said the following in your blog entry:
"Then less surprising to me, Delta and American grounded MD-80's, canceling more than a thousand flights due to wire bundles that transit wheel wells near fuel tanks."
I asked what that comment was supposed to mean, to which you replied that you "try to call a spade a spade," then went on about how outsourcing maintenance has diminished the quality of maintenance done, and that outsourced maintenance was "a strong contributing factor." Your theory is that outsourced maintenance, in the case of the AA and DL groundings of the MD-80 and MD-88, was a key component of why the planes were grounded.
Recapping the facts again about what happened, the FAA issues an AD in which they say the airlines must use "approximately" a certain length of wire covering in the repair. AA and DL have different intepretations of what that is, but no matter because they complete the AD in a timely manner and the FAA signs off on their work.
The FAA then decides it wants to start an audit of AD's, inspects AA's airplanes, and says "Hey, even though you completed this AD and we signed off on your work, we change our minds now, and we're grounding your fleet." DL grounds their fleet voluntarily, only to find that the FAA had no complaints with their work and no fixes had to be made.
Let's create a similar hypothetical scenario. Your training department has an FAA approved cirriculum for the 757. You guys have outsourced flight simulator instructors at NATCO, right? Used to be called Crew Source or something like that? Anyway, you go to recurrent on the airplane, FAA approved cirriculum and out sourced sim instructors, pass the checkride, FAA signs off, and go back out on the line. 4 months later, the FAA comes in to your training department and says "hey, we know we approved this cirriculum and signed off on Rand's checkride, but we change our mind. He's now not cleared to fly, and we're grounding him."
Now in that hypothetical, was it the outsourced sim instructor's fault? Is his or her training of diminished quality? Or were your skills as an airman less then superios? Of course not. It has to do with the FAA changing the rules of the game after the fact. The same thing happened at AA.
Does the industry suffer from a lack of leadership? In some cases yes. Does it have a lack of direction and use bankruptcy as a management tool? Yes, and I would note it saved your airline and presumably your job. Would Bob Crandall have put up with this? The FAA changing the rules of the game after the fact? Probably not.
You also said something that I found ironic about looking to Washington for bailouts. I would note that your airline, unions, and employees pushed for 2 years for a "bailout" of your pension plan. Maybe if you're so down on "bailouts", you were opposed to that move?
In closing, I have no dog in this fight either way. I don't work for the FAA, AA, DL, NW, or any airline, nor have I ever, nor do I work for any maintenance companies, nor do I work in the industry. I didn't write this specifically as a swipe at you, but I do try to call a spade a spade.
Post a Comment